Would anything really happen if you did report her?
I think the best thing is to stay out of her way and hope her accident doesn't involve anybody else.
Chris
|
we have a very strange set up nowadays in this country don't we......... the lady mentioned above in the Rover has virtually no chance of being caught..yet she was driving incredibly dangerously to the point her actions could easily kill someone else..(let alone all the costs of a multiple accident in time and money).......and her example is merely one of many, every single day
yet your average Joe has a real chance of picking up 3 points, £60 fine and sometimes more expensive insurance for an often minor misdemeanour, that could easily be in the 'ticking off' zone.
warped or what........where are the priorities?
|
|
Ive just seen a builders van with tree men in the front, no-one wearing a seatbelt, all three smoking and the driver on the phone.
|
On my route to work I have passed Police checkpoints which I presume are being used to catch drivers on mobile phones.
The usual set up involves a Police Officer (no cap or jacket and jumper covering shirt & tie) standing near to and observing a mini roundabout where traffic is moving slowly at rush hour and a marked unit 100 yards up the road. The officer at the roundabout radios ahead to the marked unit and with details of cars to be pulled over.
They have used this at least 3 times this year and everytime I pass them they have a few people to talk to.
I have been using the route for 2 years and never come across this until recently so I assume it is a new approach.
There is no sign of an ANPR camera so I have always assumed that they are catching drivers on mobiles.
|
|
It always seems that no matter how many workmen there are in the van, it always seems that the driver is the only one who can take the call.
|
|
|
|
|
For once that is a very easy question to answer with confidence. The priority is money.
|
For once that is a very easy question to answer with confidence. The priority is money.
>>
not at all accurate........a police officer employed on ths streets (i.e. not in a camera partnership) will not be considering the financial side of things in the slightest......it will be the furthermost thing on his/her mind
if they've been directed to do it by their managers and targets set, then that won't be money orientated either as the fines for that will not come anywhere near a police Operational Command Unit
the only way, in theory, there could be some kind of financial incentive would be if central govt through the Home Office set targets that in the backs of their minds were financially set... and they haven't.... traffic matters have not been a priority at all........hence the moans on here about not enough traffic cops
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought about reporting her , which I have done before .
But (a) the conditions were such that I didn't want to make an unnecessary call; (b) given the pile-up on the other carriageway I thought any local patrols would be involved in that, and by the time they could attend to this she would be out of the area.
|
'greenhey'...
All you need do is make a mental note of the reg. no. then report the incident later to the police during a break in your journey or at the end of your journey. They will trace the driver and verify what you have witnessed via access to the driver's mobile phone records which will verify the time and area that the mobile was being used thus verifying your account. The driver would then be reported, summonsed and deservedly convicted with hopefully, a disqualification being imposed.
As an aside but pertinent to your post, a young female driver in my area is presently awaiting a custodial sentence after being convicted for causing the death of another driver whom she collided with......whilst texting on her mobile phone.
|
How will the police show that Greenhey saw m'lady using her phone at the time he said he did? Or, to put it another way, they can't prove Greenhey's watch is set to the same time as the phone company's computer.
Greenhey's evidence as to what he'd seen would be okay, though, if the police wanted to pursue the matter.
But, realistically, the only time that sort of thing is likely to be pursued is where there are serious consequences.
|
|
|
if one person sees another person using a phone on the move and reports them.......it's one persons word versus another
the person doing the reporting would need to make an initial note of their observations and satisfy a court their memory was 'up to it'..........so they'd need to pull in somewhere, jot down the info and then date and time it as well as signing it, so that it could be produced in court
with no other witnesses, it would be quite possible for the Crown Prosecutuion Service to not go with it...there being limited evidence
any decent defence lawyer would no doubt state this lady was simply running her hands through her hair etc, etc......and the other driver was mistaken as he was concentrating on his driving through a rain storm on the motorway, wasn't he?
case dismissed
which is why police officers often corroborate each other's evidence and/or traffic cars have video cameras
|
And the outrageous charges that mobile companies charge for any police enquiries mean that we simply don't ask for cases like this. Sorry, but there's no point in reporting it unless you happen to see a beat car there and then.
--
Career: (n) Job, profession.
(v) Downhill, rapidly, out of control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've reported drivers who have proved a serious menace whilst using a mobile - the police always inform me that they have to witness the incident.
I've been to Tesco and back this morning and saw five drivers using their mobile on the move.......
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
It is ridiculous to ban the use of phones on the move, and typical of modern government to overload everyone with damn silly laws so that supporters of the party in power think it is doing something useful. If phone use contributes to a crash, that is covered by careless or dangerous driving.
Same thing applies to satnav which seems to me every bit as dangerous.
|
Same thing applies to satnav which seems to me every bit as dangerous.
along with opening a pack of sweets/cigarettes, 'glancing' at a map, changing a cassette/CD etc,etc
i find, at times, that even talking distracts me enough that i'd prefer my passenger to leave me alone to concentrate.......er indoors has now got used to it and no longer thinks i'm rude when i prefer long silences....i sometimes see cars going along with multi conversations, even hand waving emphasisng some point, no concentration there methinks
|
GroovyMucker...
The accuracy of Greenhey's wrist watch / car clock would be checked with the BT 'speaking clock' system and a similar check would be undertaken with the relevant mobile phone service provider. The essence of that exercise is to provide evidence that the alleged offending driver was, at the relevant time and location, using a mobile phone thereby supporting the bona fides of Greenhey as a potential witness to the incident. Greenhey, as the instigating party to the investigation, would request the police that he be notified of the outcome and if he were not satisfied with the outcome then his recourse, depending on the circumstances etc, would be to make an official complaint re possible neglect of duty.
Evidence of mobile phone useage is now a sophisticated form of forensic evidence gathering as witnessed by the recent terrorism incidents at Glasgow / London which were very quickly linked and arrests swiftly made via the evidence of mobile phone useage.
Westpig...
The owner of the car in question would be required to state who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence as witnessed by Greenhey and as stated above...forensic examination of the mobile phone useage would support Greenhey's witness evidence.
Orson (P)...
The circumstances as outlined by Greenhey indicate that the driver, in texting on a mobile phone whilst driving, was committing a serious offence and was a danger to other road users. Such conduct, if successfully prosecuted, would undoubtedly result in a substantial fine and disqualification period being imposed. Such a report from Greenhey would therefore be taken seriously by the police and would be fully investigated.
Lud...
You appear to entirely miss the point of the recently imposed legislation which in fact is intended to prevent serious injuries and fatalities to pedestrians and fellow road users and motorists. In the incident as outlioned by Greenhey, are you seriously advocating that it is perfectly acceptable to drive a car whilst sending text messages on a mobile phone?
I somehow do not envisage that the relatives of the lady motorist that I referred to in my previous post who was killed as a direct result of a motorist texting on a mobile phone whilst driving would entirely agree with your sentiments.
|
Geordie1 - sorry, but I disagree. Greenhey has no independent witness, and it is a minor road traffic offence, punishable with an endorsable ticket. Unless this female causes an accident then that's where it ends. There's not enough money in the world to go round knocking off every driver that is ever reported to the police without more to the offence.
Whether it's right or not is another question.
--
Career: (n) Job, profession.
(v) Downhill, rapidly, out of control.
|
Orson (P)...
Thanks for your response but I am responding from a professional knowledge perspective.
The independent evidence is provided from the respective mobile phone service provider and in addition to providing the exact time and format of use (dialing out / texting etc) it will also indicate what geographical area where the useage occurred thus substantiating Greenhey's evidence.
The use of the mobile phone in the circumstances as described by Greenhey is not a 'minor road traffic offence' but constitutes significant evidence of dangerous driving which can carry a substantial fine; disqualification and a sentence of imprisonment.
I can assure you that in the case quoted, the police would be very interested to obtain evidence to further a prosecution.
|
Right... confession time.
I have a hands free kit fitted in the Golf for work, and quite often use the time in the car to catch up on calls and project updates (gives me time for an uninterupted conversation). I also regularly cram in a sandwich while driving. To be honest I've never thought about getting caught eating my sandwich!
I am fiercely against drink driving, and by that I mean I wouldn't even 'have one and drive' or drink when I know I'm driving the next morning.
Having seen that programme the other night where the stopping distance was longer for someone on a handsfree mobile than someone who'd had a drink, I was stunned. The blue tooth has been switched off since then, and I now only talk to myself while driving. So even if I'm the only one that it affected, at least it did affect me.
(Am a bit confused where getting infuriated by Jeremy Vine on R2 fits into all of this though - should I turn him off too? Is he worse than drinking? ;) )
|
I agree with Lud, it is a stupid law.
The laws to deal with this already exist.
Why now law against juggling balls while driving?
Why no law against peeling potatoes while driving?
Of course there is no need. It's just more New Labour marketing and top-show law.
It has so many people busy mesmerised in the disdain of others.
|
|
|
|
There would be evidence that the woman was using her mobile at the time, although only if she sent the text, the problem as I see it would be proving she was driving at the time the text was sent, your word against hers.
|
|
a subject close to my heart this. i lost a close cousin years ago because of a brain dead idiot driver. tonight my wife and i were driving too a friends 30th. we came of the a1 up aslip road and i noticed a c max right up my backside. i was observing the speed limit, 50 mph at the time. anyway this idiot tried was looking for pass at a notorious junction for HGV's. so i accelarated away from him for around 300 yds. then slowed to 30 mph for the village we were entering. limit - 30 mph. we were about 4- 500 yds into the 30 limit and idiot was there again right up my behind. just another sorry example of a mindless idiot driving to what he thinks are super standards when in reality, he is a real danger to other safe road users. time we got tough on these stupid people i think. What do you say Mr Brown?
|
Ashok...
Your comparison with juggling, potato peeling and politics requires your review of the OP. Please re-read and digest Greenhey's post and ask yourself whether you would be at all concerned if the lady in question was driving immediately behind you in the o/s lane of a motorway doing 70mph or more during inclement weather with poor visibility and on a greasy road surface whilst texting on a mobile phone over a period of several minutes?
A stupid law...I think not if it saves countless lives and prevents numerous horrendous permanent injuries and disfigurements that will ultimately result from such a selfish and dangerous practice.
doug-r1...
As previously indicated...modern mobile phone forensic technology can produce evidence of use immediately the handset is switched on!
|
|
|
Geordie1,
What is your professional knowledge perspective? As a current PC, you'd never get dangerous driving in a million years from this, unless, as I said earlier, she causes an accident or something else similar. If, as the original poster stated, she was driving badly (even dangerously) whilst texting, without witnesses (plural) or police see it, it's not going anywhere. Add to that the huge cost of SPOC enquiries with mobile companies, and you have a large amount of something going nowhere. Any superintendent in our force would not authorise it.
Best
O
--
Career: (n) Job, profession.
(v) Downhill, rapidly, out of control.
|
Geordie1,
Orson has covered most of it.......you have to remember that these things cost money and time ..both which are in very short supply when you consider all the things that compete against each other.
A member of the public ringing into a Control Room in circumstances you suggest has to compete aginst:
-many 'immediate response' calls outstanding,
-God knows how many 'soon' calls outstanding
- the knackered budget of the Crime Manager (whose budget any forensics would come from)
- authority of a Superintendent to authorise it....(you can't just go delving into anyone's phone
records, for obvious privacy reasons). A Supt will not authorise it unless it's a serious crime or
serious risk to life.
Forget it, it will not happen.
|
Wasn't a specific law required for mobile phones required so you could be fined just for using it?
IIRC to be fined for doing other things whilst driving you actually have to drive without due care or dangerously as a result of carrying out the the activity. Smoking in (most!) cars is permitted hence no specific offence, but drop your lighted cigarette between your legs, end up driving through a red light and having an accident and smoking leads to an offence of driving without due care or dangerously.
|
Solution for someone who's distracted when texting on the motorway:
1. Discreetly pull alongside
2. Wait until their eyes are off the road.
3. Sound your horn and swerve slightly towards them.
4. Instinct will have them drive off the road. In theory, at least!
** No, I've never dared try this but I reckon it would work...
|
Just like this - NOT.
tinyurl.com/25sdzo
VB
|
Orson (P)...
Westpig...(I am presuming that you are also a serving police officer)
My comments are based upon my service as a police officer for 37 years, the last 8 years being in the rank of Superintendent in a large provincial force prior to my recent retirement.
I am disappointed Orson (P) that your opinion of the incident as described by Greenhey is one that would probably be shared by your senior supervisors.
You will be aware that it is the duty of the police to prevent and detect offences and to present collated evidence to the CPS for decision as to whether proceedings should be commenced.
I reiterate that in the circumstances outlined by Greenhey in my opinion there would be sufficient evidence from Greenhey and the mobile phone service provider to present to the CPS for a decision to prosecute in accordance with relevant legislation relevant to a) driving w/o due care; b) dangerous driving and c) using a mobile phone
I would have fully supported an investigation by one of my officers irrespective of the financial outlay and relevant protocols required in accessing the data etc. At the very least I would expect this lady to been seen by an officer relevant to her unacceptable driving standards in the hope of curtailing a future re-occurrence and thereby possibly preventing a future fatal incident.
The public expect and are entitled to a positive policing response to reported incidents particularly so when they are offering to be witnesses.
The investigation of incidents and the interests of justice should never be dependant upon financial costs being incurred and I personally have never used that as a criterion.
|
Geordie1,
Where i work, the info i've already posted is relevant and we would not be anywhere near able to deal with it as you've suggested. Not a hope at all. If i tried it, once the incredulous looks had gone, i'd be spoken to re current priorities and the realities of modern policing/life.
I can only think it's probably the difference between demands in some parts of the country versus the demands in others.
I try, on here, to provide honest and open information that is useful to other backroomers, so that they 'know where they stand' and are not disappointed with apparent 'poor service' (within a sensible remit considering confidentiality and loyalty to my employer).
|
Westpig...
Thanks for your response. I am truly saddened at the attitude of your particular force on such incidents as referred to by Greenhey.
My former force is one of the largest in the country and whilst it carried an extremely high workload such incidents would never be ignored as per your experience.
Such an attitude as you describe within your force can only lead to extreme frustration by front-line officers resulting in fear of ridicule which in turn has a marked affect upon initiative and morale in furtherance of pacifying the politicians, administrators and accountants who are profuse. Such an attitude can only ultimately result in lack of public confidence in the police.
You really would have enjoyed working with me!
|
Geordie1,
I am afraid that I have to agree with Westpig. It is not something that either of us necessarily agree with, but this is where we are now. Your last para is also correct - yes, front line officers do get frustrated with the stuff coming from on high - excrement only rolls downhill - but this is what we have to deal with now. You can see the frustration with police on the incidents/motorways thread, where I have also stuck my neck out.
I am quite sure that I too would have enjoyed serving with you! The trouble is, we need bosses inside the force who can stand up to it...
Best regards
O
--
Career: (n) Job, profession.
(v) Downhill, rapidly, out of control.
|
Geordie1. You come from an era where we had leaders not managers. Current promotion systems are producing clones (or Clowns!!). Present company excepted of course. Talk a good job, deal with theoretical scenarios in fictiticious towns in given time slots. No test of leadership qualities whatsoever.
Orsen and Westpig have about covered it and its the same where I work. Beancounters and prioritisation rule!
Another aspect;as I see it, is that the provision of information by the mobile phone operators is to some extent on a 'goodwill' basis. They are happy to provide, subject to the required data protection issues, information to assist in serious or life threatening investigations. Were we to start asking for information to prosecute their customers for 'minor' offences, then we may alienate them to the point they become obstuctive.
--
Fullchat
|
|
|
|
I somehow do not envisage that the relatives of the lady motorist that I referred to in my previous post who was killed as a direct result of a motorist texting on a mobile phone whilst driving would entirely agree with your sentiments.
Of course I don't think texting while driving is a good idea at all.
It's exactly the sort of thing traffic plod would run you in for if they saw you doing it and if there were any traffic plod. But they wouldn't need a mobile law to do it. Without due care and attention would do fine.
Perhaps texting or phoning, messing with satnavs etc should count as an exacerbating factor in any accident investigation, and carry extra penalties.
I didn't say I thought people should text while they are driving. I said I didn't see the need for a specific law against it, and I still don't. In any case there's no point in forbidding something if there's no one to stop you doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
